Prime Minister Robert Abela said that he will not comment on the situation surrounding Infrastructure Minister Ian Borg, where the courts declared that testimony made by the minister was not credible, until the period allowing for a possible appeal comes to a close, or if an appeal is filed, after it concludes.

The courts had found the testimony delivered by Borg in a libel case instituted by a third party against The Malta Independent to be 'hard to believe'. The case dealt with the sale of a piece of land in Dingli back in 2014, by a man with mental health issues, Anthony Scicluna, to then Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg.

Mark Farrugia had filed a libel case against Rachel Attard, Stephen Calleja and David Lindsay on behalf of The Malta Independent on Sunday over an article titled 'Family incensed as PS buys land from mentally-ill father' that was published in 2015. Farrugia was one of the middlemen in the sale. The court, presided over by Magistrate Victor Axiak, ruled in favour of The Malta Independent, which was represented by lawyer Peter Fenech. In its sentence, the courts said that it had found Borg's testimony and that of his middleman that they did not know of Anthony Scicluna's mental health conditions to not be credible.

Borg has refused to resign over the issue.

Asked whether he thinks Borg should carry political responsibility, Abela said that it would not be prudent for a Prime Minister to make comments about a sentence which could still be appealed.

He said that the 20 day period where the person who launched the case, the defendant or any third party who has an interest in the case can appeal that decision has not yet come to a close. "If there is an appeal I will comment after the appeal would be decided. If there won't be an appeal, I will comment after the term within which an appeal could be filed passes."

Told that this is an issue of political responsibility, he said that if there is an appeal, anything declared by the court can change, again stating that it would be premature and dangerous for him to comment as if he does he would comment at this moment in time, he would neutralise the right to an appeal by one party or another in that case.